Divorce is a thorny subject, as most people approach it with a personal or polemical agenda. One must acknowledge its evil straightaway. Divorce is a serious, perhaps* mortal sin–as is murder and not taking care of one’s parents. (Jasy 1642, Question 42) That being said, being that those who shed blood may commune after peance and negligent children may have extenuating circumstances taken into consideration to the point that virtually no one is excommunicated for neglecting parental duties, it is at least not surprising on the surface that divorce is little different. Historically, East and West divorces were tolerated (never endorsed) in cases of unbelief, adultery, and abandonment. Incest was also a reason for divorce and in the West so were the inability to produce children and physical disability/illness.*
*Western practices never gained consensus in the Church.
In the modern day, these reasons are excessively expanded upon and tragically more are contrived to justify this terrible sin. In Roman Catholicism, the same sin is merely given a different name (“anullment.”) Nevertheless, Scripturally, 1 Cor 7 and Matt 19:8-9 do appear to give Scriptural justification to the toleration of divorces in the specific cases of adultery, unbelief, and abandonment. Let’s cover these:
Matt 19:8-9 (cf Matt 5:32): Adultery
He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality [πορνείᾳ], and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
In this Scripture there is a clear denial of the admissability of divorce, other in cases of πορνεία. The Greek term literally means “prostitution” (see also here). It does have a broader range of meaning to encompass all sexual immorality and it is used in the Septuagint, unambiguously, to mean “adultery” at points. For example:
For first, she hath disobeyed the law of the most High; and secondly, she hath trespassed against her own husband; and thirdly, she hath played the whore in adultery [πορνείᾳ], and brought children by another man. (Sir 23:23)
As a matter of Occam’s Razor, simply taking the Gospel at its word and looking at how the Church has historically allowed divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery (canonically for the man*), this demonstrates the permissibility of divorce in the case of adultery.
*This is a historical judgement, not a moral evaluation of the concept. I have seen it cited that one saint applied the same to women.
1 Cor 7: Abandonment and Unbelief
1 Cor 7 covers all sorts of details concerning sexual immorality. One needs to follow the logic of the entire chapter to understand Saint Paul’s explanation of the issue. Many people get caught up on whether Saint Paul is talking about legal divorce or separation, but the key to the passage is that Paul is quoting Christ from memory:
Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart [χωρισθῆναι] from her husband. (1 Cor 7:10)
Why Saint Paul uses the Greek term χωρισθῆναι instead of πορνεία, may be simply due to lacking an OCD-level desire for linguistic precision. However, it is worth reflecting that when Christ bans divorce, it is precisely the same word that is used as an explicit euphemism for said divorce:
So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate [χωριζέτω]. (Matt 19:6)
Therefore, Saint Paul’s usage of the term χωρισθῆναι in light of the Gospel appears to be speak of literal divorce. Confusing matters, in the next sentence, he reapplies the term to refer to a temporary separation (cf 1 Cor 7:11). In my opinion, this is a rhetorical device, because in effect he forbids the woman who separates to finalize the divorce by remarrying, stipulating she “remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.” As one can see, the woman in this situation is really not divorced in a definitive way, as she is still bound to her husband.
Saint Paul’s overall desire in the passage is two fold: First, for the married, that they remain such, no matter the circumstances, as spouses (particularly Christians) sanctify one another. In other words, were you bound to an obligation to a spouse? Do not undo it. Second, if not married and thereby bound to another, if sexual abstinence is possible, it is preferable not to marry and be bound to anyone other than God. The preceding two ideas form the context where Paul gives instructions about divorce under the specific circumstance of unbelief and abandonment:
But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her [lit. send away, ἀφιέτω]…But if the unbeliever departs [χωρίζεται], let him depart [χωριζέσθω]; a brother or a sister is not under bondage [δεδούλωται] in such cases. But God has called us to peace. (1 Cor 7:13, 15)
The term for divorce use here (“ἀφιέτω“) is exceptionally imprecise, but appears to be a reference to a husband sending a wife “away,” typical of Mosaic divorce. (cf Deut 24) In any event, despite the difference between ἀφιέτω and χωρίζεται, both are being used as euphemisms for divorce, the latter in a less gender-specific way (as women in the ancient world do not send away men). Having established this, the real important concept in the passage is that of “bondage” (“δεδούλωται“) as it pertains to marriage. Despite δεδούλωται looking different than δούλος (the typical word for slave/servant), they are both etymologically related. They pertain to slavery. Paul is encouraging his listeners to be good slaves within the marital context, but if not married one is not to yearn for bondage (slavery to a spouse), but rather freedom (abstinence). One can see this in 1 Cor 7:21-24-
Were you called while a slave [δοῦλος]? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free [ἐλεύθερος], rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.
Finally, though not speaking about the issue of divorce, an observation Paul makes about those who are widowed gives the reader an insight into his views on the question. He writes:
A wife is bound [δέδεται] by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty [ἐλευθέρα] to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But she is happier if she remains as she is [I.e. unmarried], according to my judgment. (1 Cor 7:39-40)
As one can see, Paul uses the same Greek terms to pertain to liberty and slavey. Here, Paul speaks of liberty being the condition that belongs to the unmarried (here the widow), bondage being that of the married condition. With this clarified, the passage’s import upon divorce can be ascertained.
When a believing spouse is not under “bondage” (δεδούλωται) in 1 Cor 7:15, it appears that the spouse is no more “bound” (δέδεται) than the widow is in 1 Cor 7:39. Because the widow can remarry “in the Lord” (i.e. to a believer) and the believing spouse is not under bondage to the (former) unbelieving spouse, the implication is that “bondage” applies to marriage to a believer in both cases. Therefore, to be not under bondage is to have no such marital obligations and this would mean logically the abandoned believing wife can remarry.
This interestingly seems to conflict with the canons, which appear to disallow women to divorce and remarry even in cases of abandonment.* The reason Paul gives for greater leniency to the Corinthians than the canons is “because of [their] sexual immorality.” (1 Cor 7:2) This perhaps indicates the liberality the Church can exercise in mitigating against such sexual immorality given the context, time, and place. Perhaps it does not. Others can seek to improve the exegesis here and its reconciliation with the canons.
*The allowance for remarriage in the canons does not make it a sinless act, as Canon 113 (Greek numbering) of Carthage allows for remarriages but after serving a penance. However, Saint Basil’s 9th Canon flagrantly allows for remarriages for men with adulterous wives to occur without consequence, saying he “is not to be condemned.” It should be pointed out his canons are much more lenient for men than women. For example, Canon 48 allows for divorce in cases of abandonment for women, but not remarriages. See The Rudder, p. 76-80 for more on the varying views of the fathers on this question.
Conclusion. Vindicating the the Church’s canons, at least to a degree, the Scriptures explicitly permit for divorce in cases of adultery and abandonment, the latter case when the spouse who abandons the Christian is an unbeliever. Perhaps, in the case of Orthodox Christians, though this was unthinkable to some early fathers like Saint Hippolytus, the spouse who abandons the other is presumed either dead or an apostate (due to committing such a heinous sin). Lifetime penances for such behavior are not unknown in the Church’s history. Nevertheless, just like shedding blood, the Church has historically shown liberality in reducing penances even for sins that carried a lifetime penalty.
I will end with a personal opinion, which carries no authority. The Church exercises economia in a careful way to help people along the path of sanctification, meeting them where they are and bringing them where they should be. This is constantly used as justification in greater and greater liberality in applying the canons. Today, the pendulum is swinging back the other way. I submit this to you: liberality on this question is not bringing healing, but rather poisoning otherwise good marriages.
The institution of marriage in the modern day is in shambles worldwide. No one treats it as bondage and everyone constantly seeks to free themselves from it. The Church, in making such economic condecesions available, in fact is not meeting people where they are and bringing them further down the path of sanctification, but taking people on the path of sanctification and offering a carrot that encourages them to abandon their progress. This was not true in previous societies where marriage was the norm and the allowance for divorce brought healing to a tragic, but rare personal situation. But, this is not the society we live in anymore. Divorce is ubiquitous.
Of course, it is up to the bishops and the specific spiritual father to discern each individual case–not a random blog post. More broadly, if I allow myself a social observation, what we are witnessing is a society where marriage is facing a collapse as an institution. Enabling separation at a time when people are looking for every excuse to do so merely feeds into this collapse. Perhaps, the Church must pivot and return to lifetime penances yet again to deal with this scourge. For those readers who in decades time will become our Church’s bishops, I will leave that to their discernment.
*In my own private estimation, which means nothing, divorce is a mortal sin. I am unaware of the Orthodox Church categorizing it as such, because the category is new and rarely used.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
\o// Divorce is always better than living in animosity with children growing up under same roof. The Church should make it clear in counselling to both parties, that the children comes first in any financial settlement. Also, any adulterous behaviour by one party should bear the consequence of breaking up of marriage as an institution, and the price to pay is upto God’s judgement in a Court of Law- Thank You.
Children want their parents to work out their issues and be stable, selfless influences–keeping the marriage together at all costs. Thanks for your opinion!
Believe it or not, there is sufficient evidence that before the schism, divorce, while a sin, was also tolerated in the West. RC polemicists just try to anachronize and claim the twice-married in the West were all widowers. It’s just another deceit.
Believe it or not, the Ancient OrthoDox Doctorly Saintly Church Fathers (e.g. Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius) have had many heresies (e.g. “Baptism of blood/desire”, “nfp”, denial of Papal Primacy and Supremacy, et cetera) and heretical works (e.g. “City of God”, “ConFessions”, “ReTractions”, et cetera) forged in their names to make them look like heretics and themselves look OrthoDox which alone is Catholic which alone is Christian and the also UnAnimously ConSensed that the names OrthoDox/Catholic/Christian are identical and can be claimed by no mortal sinner, no schismatic, no heretic, and/or no apostate as all mortal sins, all schisms, all heresies, and all apostasies Ipso Facto Latæ Sententiæ Authority ExCommUnicate from Christianity and DePose from all Titles, all Offices, all Powers, all Dignities, and all Honors.
Bishop Doctor Saint Cyprian of Carthage, Liber V, Epistola LXXV ad Magnus:
“Respecting which matter, as much as the capacity of my Faith and the Sanctity and Truth of the Divine Scriptures suggest, I respond, that no heretics or schismatics at all have any Power or Right.”
Bishop Saint OpTatus of Milevis, ConTra Parmenian: Liber I ConTra Parmenian (ConTra Donatistas): Liber I (372), Caput X et XII:
“…Therefore, none of the heretics possess either the Keys, which Peter alone received, or the Ring, with, which we read, that the Fountain has been Sealed, nor is any heretic 1 of them to whom that Garden belongs in which God plants His young trees. …
…
…Rightly have thou closed the Garden to heretics. Rightly have thou claimed the Keys for Peter. Rightly have thou denied the “right” of cultivating the young trees to them who are certainly shut out from the Garden and from the ParaDise of God. Rightly have thou withdrawn the Ring from them to whom it is not allowed to open the Fountain.”
Pope Doctor Saint AthanAsius of Alexandria, Dogmatic Epistle to Bishop Saint Serapion of Thmuis (359):
“Let us note that the very Tradition, teaching, and Faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded. And, if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”
apostate AntiPastor AntiDoctor AntiSaint Hieronymus of Stridonium, Liber DiaLogus ConTra “Luciferiani” (379), Caput XX:
“But, to go back to our starting point, on the return of the ConFession, it was DeTermined, in a Synod, afterwards, held at Alexandria, that, the authors of the heresy ExCepted, (who could not be excused on the ground of error,) Penitents should be AdMitted to CommUnion with the Church: not that they who had been heretics could be Bishops: but because it was clear that they who were received had not been heretics.”
ArchBishop Doctor Saint Ambrosius of Milan, Dogmatic ComMentary on Divine Scripture, Psalms (381):
“Where Peter is, therefore, there is the Church. Where the Church is, there is not death but Life ETernal. … Although many call themselves “Christians”, they usurp the name and do not have the ReWard.”
Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius, Dogmatic Sermon 6:4, to CateChumens on the Creed, 6:14 (395):
“This Church is Holy, the One Church, the True Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as She does against all heresies. She can fight; but She cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from Her, like the useless loppings pruned from a Vine. She remains fixed in Her Root, in Her Vine, in Her Charity. The gates of Hell will not conquer Her.” [Faith of the Early Fathers: Volume 3, #1535, #1986]
Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius, Dogmatic Epistle 43:7 (397):
“the Primacy of the Apostolic Chair always existed in the Roman Church”
Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius Dogmatic ReSponse AGainst the “Epistle” of Mani (397):
“I should not believe the GoSpel except as moved by the Authority of the Catholic Church.”
Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius, Dogmatica ReSpondeo ConTra Faustum Manichæum 4 (400):
“Heretics worship a “God” who is a liar, and a “Christ” who is a liar.”
Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius, Dogmatic Sermon 120:13 (410):
“You are not to be looked upon as holding the True Catholic Faith if you do not teach that the Faith of Rome is to be held.”
NOTE! Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius referred to the ReLigion of the Seat of Rome; not the superstitions of the apostate city of Rome!
Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius, Dogmatic Sermon 267:4 (412):
“See what you must take note of. See what you must fear. It happens that in the human body, or rather, off the body, some member, whether hand, finger, or foot, may be cut away. And if a member is cut off, does the soul go with it? When the member was in the body, it lived. And off, its life is lost. So too a Christian man is Catholic while he lives in the Body. Cut off, he is made a heretic. The Spirit does not follow an AmPutated Member.” [Faith of the Early Fathers: Volume 3, #1523, 1986]
Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius, Dogmatica Tractate De Hæresibus 88 (428):
“Noone who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as Catholic or call himself one; for there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if anyone holds to one single 1 of these, he is not Catholic.”
Pope Saint Celestinus, Dogmatic Epistle to the Clergy and the Laity of Byzantium (430):
“However, lest, even at a time, his “Sentence” be “seen” “as” “valorous”, in himself who already provoked a Divine Sentence, the Authority of Our Apostolic See has clearly Sanctioned, that noone, even a Bishop even a Cleric even a profession of any Christian who Nestorius, or even his similitude, from when they began to preach this, are “DeJected” or “ReMoved” “from” their Location or “from” CommUnion, or to be “seen” “as” “DeJected” or “ExCommUnicated”. But they all, in Our CommUnion, were and, until now, perdure, for none are Potent to DeJect or ReMove who preach such things.”
Pope Saint Celestinus, Dogmatic Epistle to the apostate AntiPatriArch “John” of AntiOch (430):
“If, however, any, “by” “Bishop” Nestorius, or “by” them who follow him, after they begin to preach such things, is “ExCommUnicated” or “Exed” of his OverSight or Clerical Dignity, and it is manifest that he has dured and still dures in Our CommUnion, We Judge him not remoted: because, not Potent to ReMove his Sentence, who preached it already DePosed himself.”
Pope Doctor Saint Leo I the Great, Dogmatic Epistle 139 (4th September 454):
“But, if there are any who are still in the darkness of ignorance or the discord of perversity, let them be InStructed by the Authority of them whose Doctrine in God’s Church was Apostolic and Clear, that they may recognize that, on the InCarnation of God’s Word, we believe what they did, and may not, by their obstinacy, place themselves outside the Body of Christ, in which we died and rose with Him: because neither loyalty to the Faith nor the Plan of the Mystery AdMits that either the GodHead should Be Possible in its Own Essence, or the Reality be “falsified” in His taking on Him of our flesh.” [in the consulship of the illustrious Aetius and Studius]
Pope Doctor Saint Leo I the Great, Dogmatic Epistle 169:2:
“For, of such, the Holy Ghost speaks by the Apostle, “having an appearance of Godliness, but denying the Power thereof” [2 TimoTheus 3:5], and again elsewhere, “they profess that they know God but, in deeds, they deny Him” [Titus 1:16]. And hence, since, in every member of the Church, both the integrity of the True Faith and abundance of good works is looked for, how much more must both these things to predominate in the Chief Pontiff, because the 1 without the other cannot be in Union with the Body of Christ.”
NOTE 1! The Pope himself is bound to the Dogma.
NOTE 2! All holding onto Dogmas of Faith without obeying the Laws of Morals cannot be in Union with the Body of Christ.
Pope Doctor Saint Leo I the Great, Dogmatic Epistle (17th Quartilis (which the pagans invalidly “named” “june” after the demon idol “juno”) 460):
“And hence, even if, in his ProFession of Faith he neglects nothing, and deceives us in nothing, it best consorts with Thy Glory absolutely to ExClude him from this design of his; because, in the Bishop of so great a city, the UniVersal Church must rejoice with Saintly ExUltation, so that the True Peace of the Lord may Be Glorified not only by the Preaching of the Faith, but also by the example of men’s conduct.” [in the consulship of Magnus and Apollonius]
Pope Doctor Saint Leo I the Great, Dogmatic Epistle 80, DeCretal 1 Question 1:
“ElseWhere, there is neither valid SacerDotium nor True ObLation.”
NOTE! “ElseWhere” is outside the Ancient OrthoDox Church.
Pope Doctor Saint Leo I the Great:
“With them whom we have not communicated while they were living, we do not venture to communicate while they are dead.”
ImPerator Saint Justinian, 2nd ConStantinoPolitan Synod (14th Triplicis (which the pagans invalidly “named” “may” after the demon idol “maia”) 553) (ConFirmed by Pope Pelagius I), Dogmatic Sentence AGainst the 3 Chapters:
“The heretic, even though he has not been ConDemned Officially, by any individual, in reality, brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the Way of Truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: “A man who is a heretic, after the 1st or 2nd AdMonition, avoid: knowing that he, who is such a one, is subverted and delinquent, being condemned by his own “judgment”.” [Titus 3:10–11]?
…
We bear in mind what was ProMised about the Holy Church and Him Who said “the gates of Hell will never prevail against Her” [Matthew 16:18]. By these, We InTelligate, “the death-dealing tongues of heretics”.”
Pope Doctor Saint Gregorius I the Great DiaLogIst TheoLogian, Morals on Joab: Book 34, Section 19:
“The Saints pray for their enemies at a time when they are able to convert their hearts to fruitful Penitence. … And this is now the reason for Saintly men not praying for unCreeing men who are already dead; for Saintly men are unwilling that the Merit of their prayers should be set aside in the PreSence of the Just Judge on behalf of them whom they know to already be ConSigned to Eternal PunishMent.”
Pope Saint Gregorius II (circa 731):
“You ask advice on the LawFulNess of making offerings for the dead. The Doctrine of the Church is this — that every man should make offerings for them who died as True Christians … but he is not allowed to do so for them who die in a state of mortal sin even if they were Christians.”
These Dogmatic StateMents just go to show just far both the Western “pornocrats” and the Eastern Photians strayed from OrthoDoxy which alone is Catholicity which alone is Christianity.
This is cited in the intro, albeit to other sources.
Hi Craig,
I’ve always thought of annulment as Roman Catholic ‘divorce’ with some fancy legalese and sideways thinking. It’s a bit like during the Crusades when fighting bishops bashing in the heads of their enemies didn’t count as killing as there wasn’t any bloodshed. Thank you for shedding some light on the Orthodox views of divorce.
I wonder of divorce rates in traditionally Catholic countries such as Italy or Spain or France is any different from that of Greece or Romania?
Sadly probably not, neither are the abortion rates outside of the Soviet bloc.
Solid content and precisely what I have gotten from bishops and monks. The modern notion of the church offering mercy to divorces and broken marriages, usually just amounts to permissiveness.
Undoubtedly they think in someway this is maintaining the growth of their church, but the splitting of families is never conducive to growth, nor is it conducive to financial support. Divorce suspect families financially, 20 years. If you think the orthodox church is thriving, think what it could be doing if it was upholding the sacrament of marriage.
“Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent”- Adam Smith … the church should take note.